Of course it is. I understand their anger, of course, but they have zero right to blow anything up. They should be treated like any other terrorist under the law.Is bombing a family planning clinic in opposition to abortion a terrorist act? I say that it is. It's the use of violence to try to get your way politically.
Is bombing a family planning clinic in opposition to abortion a terrorist act? I say that it is. It's the use of violence to try to get your way politically.
How does setting off a bomb get their way politically?
It's an attempt to scare people and make a message against abortion.... pretty straight forward.How does setting off a bomb get their way politically?
Is bombing a family planning clinic in opposition to abortion a terrorist act? I say that it is. It's the use of violence to try to get your way politically.
Yes and no.
"Classic" or true terrorism attacks all of us - simply for existing
Terrorism against an abortion clinic is only set against the abortionist and his victims.
Is there some significance to it being deemed a "terrorsit act", say a longer prison sentence, as opposed to your usual, everyday bombing?
Bombings in this country are an everyday occurance?
Is bombing a family planning clinic in opposition to abortion a terrorist act? I say that it is. It's the use of violence to try to get your way politically.
Is there some significance to it being deemed a "terrorsit act", say a longer prison sentence, as opposed to your usual, everyday bombing?
It paints people like Eric Rudolph as terrorists instead of being treated like a hero like he was by quite a few anti-abortion supporters when he was on the lam.Don't be banal. My question was to the motivation of the OP to have abortion clinic bombings considered a "terrorist act". Is there some advantage to this?
It paints people like Eric Rudolph as terrorists instead of being treated like a hero like he was by quite a few anti-abortion supporters when he was on the lam.
I think that's an advantage.
If you get tm ask the motivation of the OP,then I get to ask you what are your motivations?
Yes, actually.
Due to a raft of atrociously bad laws passed during the Clinton and Bush II administrations, merely being ACCUSED of certain criminal acts (including some forms of terrorism) dramatically changes which legal rights -- if any -- you retain.
I don't recall if domestic terrorism falls within that range of specified crimes, but for those select crimes, you don't have habeas corpus rights or in some cases even a right to a timely trial (i.e. you can be thrown in a dungeon without access to family members or counsel...indefinitely).
So if the local wiseguy torched a Dry Cleaners because they won't pay protection money and WG wants to send a message to other business owners, that's a crime, but if you're anti abortion and torch an abortion clinic that's a double secret probation crime crime worthy of Guantanamo?
It paints people like Eric Rudolph as terrorists instead of being treated like a hero like he was by quite a few anti-abortion supporters when he was on the lam.
I think that's an advantage.
If you get tm ask the motivation of the OP,then I get to ask you what are your motivations?
What advantage is that? Do you think the people who applauded Rudolph are going to think differently about him because he's labeled a terrorist in the MSM?
That's Verthaine for ya. He doesn't read books, he hates answering questions, and he has prerogative that only Bobby Brown can appreciate.Don't be banal.